Monday, July 30, 2012

the multifold resistance: an invitation

In Bill McKibben’s recent article
in Rolling Stone, Climate
Change’s Terrifying New Math, he identifies “the enemy” as the oil
industry. But like so many of today’s enemies, this one too is not well defined.
Whether we like it or not, the architecture of the “developed” world has been
meticulously structured around the entire population’s dependence on non-renewable
resources. We don’t just support the industry when we unconsciously flick the switch,
fly, or fill up at the pump; old-fashioned pensions are now shadowy “investment
portfolios” (beware: even “green funds” support oil companies and war
profiteers). Plastics, products shipped via plane and truck from faraway lands,
crops grown with petrochemicals…fossil fuels are everywhere, hidden in plain
sight. If we could trace our paychecks back to the source, many of us would
have to admit that our livelihoods, in one way or another, depend on the fossil
fuel industry.

So how do we fight an enemy with
whom we are so thoroughly intertwined?

First, we must accept that the
problem is a complex one, riddled with paradoxes and contradictions. YES, it is
possible to be part of the problem and part of the solution at the same time. By
cultivating awareness of all factors involved and learning to weigh the consequences
of our actions, we can begin to make choices that contribute less to the
problems and more to the solutions.

Next, we’ll need to see the
fossil fuel industry for what it really is: not as an ordinary industry, but as
an oppressive regime that has, by wielding massive power in the form of
financial capital, taken control of our government and infiltrated every facet
of our society.

Fortunately, oppressive regimes
can and have been toppled, and we can draw on historical evidence to help us in
the development of effective strategies to subvert them.

Dr. Gene
Sharp, a political scientist who has dedicated his life to the study of
non-violent resistance movements, states in his book From Dictatorship to
Democracy that:

“When one wants to bring down a dictatorship most effectively
and with the least cost then one has four immediate tasks:

Strengthen the oppressed population themselves in their
determination, self-confidence, and resistance skills

Strengthen the independent social groups and institutions of
the oppressed people

Create a powerful internal resistance force

Develop a wise grand strategic plan for liberation and
implement it skillfully.”

Additionally, Dr. Sharp recommends that we discover the
sources of the oppressors’ strengths and destabilize them. At the same time, we
must identify weakness and concentrate our attacks on “Achilles heels”. Sharp suggests
that, "Liberation
from dictatorships ultimately depends on the people’s ability to liberate
themselves."

What would it mean to “liberate ourselves” in the context of
bringing down the fossil fuel industry? Self-liberation will involve
extricating ourselves from the corrupt system to the greatest extent possible.
Personal, community, and national energy independence are not separate issues:
they are one issue with many facets, all of which can and must be addressed
simultaneously for maximum, immediate impact.

A “wise grand strategic plan for liberation” will provide the
tools the oppressed peoples will need once they have been freed. In this case,
we are going to need to develop new habits and skills that will be necessary in
a post-fossil-fuel dominated society. Beginning to develop these skills as soon
as possible will immediately begin to diminish the power of the oppressor and
empower the ones who resist, while preparing us to thrive in the future.

There has been much ado about the roll of “personal action” –
as opposed to political action – in averting ecological catastrophe. There is some
concern amongst activists, expressed both in the McKibben article and by Annie
Leonard in her new video The Story of
Change, that the public will be apt to mistake token gestures (such as
recycling and switching to high-efficiency light bulbs) for wholehearted dedication
to holistic system change. Rather than proceeding to educate eager audiences
about ways we can begin to implement more substantial kinds of changes in our
own lives and communities in addition to concerted political
action, these leaders have chosen to begin a fight against the system from the
top down instead. Meanwhile, while we wait for authority figures to
direct our efforts, our outrage and eagerness to become involved becomes
diffused.

The urgency of this situation demands that each of us take the
initiative to lead ourselves, to develop solutions that can be implemented
immediately, and fit the scale of our own lives. Why not fight the system from
the top down and the bottom up simultaneously?

The most abundant “green” technology is available to everyone
right now at zero cost: it’s our collective ability to maximize efficiency and
reduce waste. In light of the profoundly destructive effects of human activity
on our planet’s ecology, we must reevaluate what we consider to be a necessity
vs. that which we consider convenience. Reducing or eliminating consumption for
convenience, multiplied by millions, will result in an immediate, quantifiable
reduction in the demand for fossil fuels.

During WWII the U.S. and British governments initiated an
intensive and wildly successful resources conservation campaign. The public was
asked to voluntarily use less gasoline, fabric, metal, rubber, paper and other
material goods, and to grow small backyard “Victory Gardens”. “Use it Up, Wear it Out, Make it Do, or Do
Without” was the motto of the day. By becoming more self-sufficient,
the government could invest more of the country’s resources in the war effort.

Obviously, is not in the best interest of a government that is
“for the corporations, by the corporations” to ask us to consume less, in spite
of the fact that the health of the entire planet depends on it. A similar
campaign today – only this time with the purpose of investing in the peace
effort – if it is to happen at all, must come from the grassroots. It must come
from ourselves.

Perhaps prominent environmental groups hesitate to include us
because they are loath to lay even a modicum of blame for our predicament on
the very people whose support they require. But until we acknowledge our
complicity and admit that there is no one perfect solution – and most of all,
that we are in this together – any strategy that we could devise would lack the
enduring strength that could be derived from a truly inclusive movement,
founded in honesty, transparency, and collective responsibility.

By inviting us to contribute personally and directly in the
solution, our actions, however small, however symbolic, will provide us with a
sense of unity around a common purpose that has been absent from our culture for
far too long.

We can look to Dr. Sharp to help us dismantle an oppressive
regime, but unless and until we learn how to live in harmonious relationship
with one another and the earth, no solution will be permanent. For these kinds
of skills, we’ll need to draw inspiration from the wisdom of other, more earth-centered
societies, many of which are alive on this planet today.

If we’re going to lobby for better legislation, the Great
Law of the Iroquois would be an excellent place to start. “The Law of the 7
Generations” requires that all decisions be made with consideration for how our
actions would affect a person born seven generations into the future. We don’t
need a government to pass this law – we can establish it for ourselves right
now.

1 comment:

Yes, exactly. Without a similar crisis on our doorstep, I am quite certain that the overwhelming majority of people will not accept your solution. Indeed, the population remains completely unaware of the true nature of the dilemma facing us.

I have my own quibble with those who propose blocking pipelines and the like. They should be clear: the oil companies lease the land from the governments and own the oil that comes out of the ground. It is sold on the international market to the highest bidder. It is going to get burned one way or another. When we stop burning oil, (due to credit destruction through debt deflation or physical supply issues) our experiment with industrial civilization comes to an end.